Focus on IRAQ

In the previous two posts we address the larger question of what failure of our Middle East policy could mean. As important as Lebanon, Israel and Iran are to the solution of the current geo-strategic crisis, all of them hinge on Iraq.

I've often said that our policy in Iraq is a "keystone" to unlocking the endless cycle of violence in the Middle East and building the foundation for a better world. Lately, the bad news has outweighed the good (none of which is reported) and Democrats flush from their election victories are only too keen to adopt the mantra that the Bush policy has "failed" without offering an alternative.

But the moment soon approaches when just saying "NO" is not enough. Already the political battle lines are forming. In the next few months the debate will decided whether we turn things around or face the horrific consequences of defeat.

Let's review some recent opinion on the matter as we move forward with the debate:

Speaking of Democrats with no plan, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska calls himself a Republican but few people understand why. Writing in Sunday's Washington Post he advises US withdrawal from Iraq then goes on to declare that: "that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years." The adsorption of Iraq into the Iranian/Syrian orbit is the "encouraging" Chuck?

Somehow turning Iraq over to the architects of Islamic terrorism would be an "honorable" conclusion to U.S. efforts in Iraq. Hagel goes on to suggest that such an outcome would allow the U.S. to " lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process" presumably after we did the "honorable" thing and watched as every Jew in Israel was killed or forced to leave.

Bill Kristol (we're not always a fan, but this is spot on) writes with Robert Kagan in the Weekly Standard of the renewed emphasis on the foreign policy school of Realism. "Surrender as 'Realism' Retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries." Here's an excerpt:

Foreign policy realism is ascendant these days, we are told. This would be encouraging if true, because our foreign policy must indeed be realistic. But what passes for "realism" today has very little to do with reality. Indeed, if you look at some of the "realist" proposals on the table, "realism" has come to be a kind of code word for surrendering American interests and American allies, as well as American principles, in the Middle East.
...
So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries' every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected--nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw, not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from elsewhere as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively--realistically--our interests and goals. This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender.

The reality of the new "Realism" is a Middle East dominated by America's enemies and an ever larger "no go" zone where the U.S. has LESS influence, not more. Those who think such a policy would be a good idea are in company with Osama bin Laden who has repeatedly stated that as his initial goal on the path to radical Islam dominating the world.

The American electorate did NOT choose that outcome in November's election. But will victorious Democrats be able to rise above years of obstruction and denial to address the issue in positive, practical and effective measures?